Courting Disaster

Rolling Stone magazine published an article yesterday about remarks made by Justice Samuel Alito that were recorded on June 3 at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner.  The magazine notes that the event, put on by a nonprofit organization, “is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices.”

One of the people at the event was Lauren Windsor, a dues-paying member of the society, who recorded her conversation with Alito.  Though she asked questions as if she was a religious conservative, she is in fact a liberal documentary filmmaker.

When Ms. Windsor suggested that negotiating with the left was not likely to happen because there was so much polarization and it’s really “a matter, like, of winning” – Justice Alito agreed with her.

“I think you’re probably right,” he replied. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

While the left certainly dislikes views of the right, and viscerally hates the most extremist views on the far right, it's not “difficult” for the left to live "peacefully" with them.  While there have been some few acts of violent rioting during protests and random violent actions by individuals that are denounced by the left, for the most part the response to far-right politics and judicial decisions has been to put together aggressive protests, and organize effective grassroots voting.  Not being able to live “peacefully” is right-wing fascistspeak – which is where we’ve almost exclusively seen bombings, mass shootings and, of course, the violent Insurrection breaking into the U.S. Capitol.  Making heroes of people like Kyle Rittenhouse for shooting protestors to death.  Making heroes of the McCloskeys, the married couple who stood in front of their St. Louis home with AR-15s at the ready as Black Lives Matters protestors peacefully marched past.  Making leaders of Charlie Kirk who now heads the important far-right Turning Point USA convention, and who said, “"I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”  It’s the party of Trump’s “revenge” and “retribution.”  And there are “many fine people” among Nazis, who they welcome into the base of the party.

This is not a “both sides” thing, much as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wants to believe, not matter how far he hides behind his wife for raising an upside-down American flag outside their home as a signal of distress.  Not being able to compromise or live “peacefully” with those who you disagree with is an extreme-right fascist thing.

By the way, it is also worth noting that the job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution fairly and objectively -- not to figure out ways to "not compromise" with political opinions you don't agree with.

Even more, there is Justice Alito recorded, saying that he was brought to the Supreme Court to “get rid of abortion” and to “let dark money flow” in elections.

All justices on the Supreme Court have their political biases.  That’s fine and understood, it’s why presidents nominate them.  But they’re not brought to the Supreme Court to make absolutely sure that those biases become law of the land, regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says, even if the Constitution doesn’t support it, even before hearing oral arguments made before the Court on behalf of the specific case at issue!  Rather, after intense questioning under oath, they are approved to sit on the Supreme Court to make decisions impartially about what the law is, after hearing it argued.  And if what they want because of their political beliefs can’t be supported by the law, blind justice reigns supreme.

Beyond that, Ms. Windsor also brought up religion with Justice Alito, moving the conversation into the idea of America being a Christian nation.

"People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that,” she said to him, “— to return our country to a place of godliness.”

And Alito was fully on board.  “I agree with you. I agree with you,” he answered.

Worth noting that this view of America having to return to God on which the country is supposed founded is not only at odds with U.S. history and the writings of Founding Father John Adams, it is contradicted by Alito’s long-standing, very conservative ally, Chief Justice John Roberts at the same event!

As it happens, Ms. Windsor raised her same questions to the Chief Justice (who, like Alito, was nominated to the High Court by George W. Bush).  And Roberts not only disagreed with her stated “claims” about unusual polarization – by citing how divisive the country was during the Vietnam War, as an example – but also contradicted her about whether it’s up to the court to get America back on a “moral path.”

“Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?”, he asks her, saying that’s for people the public majority elects to make laws, not lawyers.  And then argues against the assertion that America is a “Christian nation” and that the Supreme Court should be “guiding us in that path.” Roberts disagrees, and the article notes that he cites the perspectives of “Jewish and Muslim friends,” before stating pointedly: “It’s not our job to do that. It’s our job to decide the cases the best we can.”

So, this isn’t just the conservative view on the Supreme Court.  This is Justice Samuel Alito.  The Court most-definitely is very conservative today.  It is only the outwardly biased Alito who is flying far-right flag symbols over two of his homes – and apparently lied about in his letter to Congress purportedly explaining the situation.  Only Alito who is claiming the right can’t live “peacefully” with the left.  Only Alito who agrees that the point is “winning.”  Only Alito who, in writing the majority decision overturning Roe v. Wade, cited medieval religious penalties (not even criminal law) to support throwing out a constitutional right.  Only Alito who says his obligation for serving on the Supreme Court, even before hearing arguments, is specifically to get rid of abortion and let dark money flow in elections.  Only Alito who infamously mouthed “Not true” to President Obama at his 2010 State of the Union Address.

All the while sitting in judgement on cases he should be recused from, if the Supreme Court had a serious Code of Conduct.  Sitting on a Supreme Court it’s arguable he should be impeached from.

Doing such things is fine and proper for almost all U.S. citizens.  But if you want to do them, you shouldn’t access a lifetime appointment to be a Supreme Court Justice and have oversight in determining fairly and objectively how the United States Constitution should be interpreted.

(And we won’t even get into today Justice Clarence Thomas and his $4 millions of gifts he’s received while on the bench, including a $500,000 trip he “inadvertently omitted.  I’m still trying to figure out how you “inadvertently omit” a half-million dollar free gift vacation.)

You can read the full article here – and hear three of the audio recordings which are embedded in it.